Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Evidence of Biased Investigation, Expert Testimony Admissible; Award of Future Benefits Upheld
In Hangarter v Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 12841 (9th Cir. June 25, 2004), the Ninth Circuit addressed an insured's claim for coverage and bad faith under a disability policy. The insured alleged that the insurer improperly terminated her disability benefits based upon the opinion of medical examiners and claims investigators that the insured was not “totally disabled.” The insured obtained a verdict for breach of contract and bad faith. The insurer raised numerous issues on appeal, including arguments that the jury erred in finding it liable for bad faith and that the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding bad faith and in permitting an award of future benefits under the policy.
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.